Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[ialmisry]

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.

biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.

330-1453.

surely it would be after 476, the fall of the western roman empire, 330 would be late antiquity!

No. Although periodization is rarely, if ever, clear cut (some date Late Antiquity to the Rise of Islam in the 7th century), the shift from Old Rome to New Rome-with all that that entailed-set the stamp on the millenium or so to come (at least in the world connected to the Mediterreanean). The Fall of Old Rome in 476 (not exact either, Romulus Augustlus' predecessor,  Julius Nepos, was still reiging de jure until 480.  But Romulus Augustulus's name has a more chiastic ring to it, though Julius Nepos/Julius Caesar is not entirely devoid of recall) did not leave such marks (the barbarians had already come in long before that, and Roman authority (i.e. "Byzantine") was re-established in the West (at least part).

The 476 is (West)Euro-centric, but I don't reject it on that basis.  The fact is, the world of Rome, Italy and the Western Empire took shape a century before (e.g. the transformation of the Tetrarchy in 324, the Emperor Gratian ceding his title of "pontiff" to the bishop of Rome with the abolition of pagan rites in 382, the final division of the Empire in 395 and the breakdown of the borders and the settling of the barbarians in the West and carving out of their kingdoms starting in the same year, etc.).  One could use Old Rome's downfall in 476 as the downfall of New Rome in 1453 as the demarkation, but the contemporary record does not disclose such an awareness of "the end of an era" as the conquest of Constantinople palpably did (and the sacking of Rome in 410 did, although few historians take that as their demarkation).

[ialmisry]

I noticed you made reference to the Middle Ages beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not a Roman Catholic website. What they did isn't going to be the guidepost here.

You do realize that we are NOT Roman Catholics?

We are not members of the Roman Catholic Church

I know. several people keep telling me that this is an 'Orthodox' site. and that, and I quote, "an Orthodox Christian considers the Orthodox Church to be THE Church of Jesus Christ".

but my entire point about bring up the Medieval Church was that, at the time, it was the church. anything that went against the church, be that science or other denominations, was blasphemy. simple as that.
so that means the only reason that the 'Orthodox' church even exists is because somewhere along the line some decided to question the teachings of 'the church'.
and I think we can all agree here that questioning the teachings of the church is exactly what I'm doing.
so if your denomination only exists because someone questioned the teachings of the church of the time. and now your telling me off for questioning the teachings of today... that sounds hypocritical

We predate both your Protestant and Vatican siblings, so no, we exist (and btw, we are not a denominiation) precisely because someone accepted the teachings of the Church in the time of the Aposltes, and in every generation since them.  The Vatican and your other denominations started by questioning the teachings of the Church, often self-serving questions....

I am not saying that you are accountable for what some different denomination of Christians did a few hundred years. I am just arguing the point that a) the 'Orthodox Church' is just another denomination.

Neither theologically nor, perhaps more importantly, historically accurate.

and b) the teachings of the Orthodox church may not be any more accurate than the teachings of Medieval churches.

Define "accurate."

so please stop saying "the reason you shouldn't have premarital sex is because the Orthodox church says it is wrong".
start saying things like "the reason the Orthodox church says you shouldn't have premarital sex is because it raises the risk of STDs..."

the Orthodox Church is a hospital for the soul, not a social welfare clinic (though it does do social welfare).

God established the married couple in the Image and Likeness of the Holy Trinity, sex being the reflection of the union of the Persons in the Trinity.  That union of the Father, Son, and Spirit is permanent and eternal, not transitory.

Premarital sex goes against that telos, end.  Hence it is wrong.

you see? the second option gives a rational train of thought that can be applied to Christians of all denominations. or even people who are not christian. and best of all, it is TRUE. no-one in their right mind can argue with the Truth (oh... and the church's opinion is just that, an opinion. even if it is based on true facts)

You asked for that opinion, remember?  Or do you think that when you want the Church's opinion, you will give it to her?

[dzheremi]

I don't understand just some guy's reasoning at all. The medieval Roman Catholic church was not the Church just because it claimed to be, just like how it isn't the Church today just because it keeps claiming that it is. Sort of like how premarital sex remains a grave sin even though you keep arguing that it isn't. Not everything is a matter of opinion (it IS the church's opinion that premarital sex is wrong, but in that opinion, it is following Christ and the apostles, not deciding with every new generation what it will think this time around). This is particularly true of those things that endanger your salvation, like willful disobedience of the commandments of God.

[PeterTheAleut]

I noticed you made reference to the Middle Ages beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not a Roman Catholic website. What they did isn't going to be the guidepost here.

You do realize that we are NOT Roman Catholics?

We are not members of the Roman Catholic Church

I know. several people keep telling me that this is an 'Orthodox' site. and that, and I quote, "an Orthodox Christian considers the Orthodox Church to be THE Church of Jesus Christ".

but my entire point about bring up the Medieval Church was that, at the time, it was the church. anything that went against the church, be that science or other denominations, was blasphemy. simple as that.

The medieval Roman Catholic Church never was the Church.

so that means the only reason that the 'Orthodox' church even exists is because somewhere along the line some decided to question the teachings of 'the church'.

The reason the Orthodox Church exists in separation from the Latin church is because the Latin church departed from the truth.

and I think we can all agree here that questioning the teachings of the church is exactly what I'm doing.
so if your denomination only exists because someone questioned the teachings of the church of the time. and now your telling me off for questioning the teachings of today... that sounds hypocritical

Not at all when you consider that only the Orthodox Church of today is the legitimate continuation of the Church of the Apostles and of the first millennium.

I am not saying that you are accountable for what some different denomination of Christians did a few hundred years. I am just arguing the point that a) the 'Orthodox Church' is just another denomination. and b) the teachings of the Orthodox church may not be any more accurate than the teachings of Medieval churches.

so please stop saying "the reason you shouldn't have premarital sex is because the Orthodox church says it is wrong".

If you wish to continue to see us as just another denomination among many, that's your call. We, however, are not going to back down from calling ourselves the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ just because you tell us to. The Orthodox Church IS the Church. She it is who gives mankind the only sure guideposts to salvation in Jesus Christ.

start saying things like "the reason the Orthodox church says you shouldn't have premarital sex is because it raises the risk of STDs..."
you see? the second option gives a rational train of thought that can be applied to Christians of all denominations. or even people who are not christian. and best of all, it is TRUE. no-one in their right mind can argue with the Truth (oh... and the church's opinion is just that, an opinion. even if it is based on true facts)

Facts are often the enemy of Truth.

@ Micha? Kalina: it seems you of all readers are having a hard time understanding the point of what I was making with the medieval church. while others just passed the statements off as being directed to the wrong denomination, you seem to have done that as well as act as act as if the statements where in reference to the orthodox church.
so for you especially:
"do not miss interpret why post about the medieval church. reread this post to clarify what was said"

ROFL , I did not have a good lough like this in a long time hehehe, this is quite hilarious! forgive me but My goodness!!

good to hear.

the message will be the same, premarital sex is a sin,

*sigh* and where back to the same old stuff. lets follow the check list:

I ask if premarital sex is a sin	Tick
you claim it is a sin.	Tick
I ask you too prove it/ give reasons why, etc.	Tick
repeat from step 2	Tick

I am a little tempted to respond to the rest of your post, but it is all centred around the idea that premarital sex is a sin. and that partaking in it would be sinning. and as such you then go on to mention forgiveness and such...  I know you are trying to save me (or whatever adjective you want to put there), and I know you mean well. but your responce is, as far as this thread is concerned, empty. it does not even address the key question of the thread. But its good to know you care enough to try

I do not understand what Christianity is if we persist in this idea that God is fine and stuff (y'know, whatever), the Bible is a good book to try and live by (well, as much as is reasonable...), but if we don't agree with part of it, then hold the phone there, Jesus, we're in control of this ship...!

I really do not understand.

nor would I.
but I am not like that, am I!
if there is part of the Bible I don't like... tough. being a sola scriptura sort of person, I follow what the Bible says. it is what the Church says that I might kick up a fuss about.

it took me three tries to decide how to phrase this second paragraph. I have decided to skip to the point:
I do not understand what Christianity is if we follow what we are told without question.

We do not follow what we are told without question. Many of us have asked questions in search of the Truth and found it in the Orthodox Church. Let me ask you this: Why do you follow your interpretation of the Bible without question?

I'm still waiting on the response to John 8:41...

John 8:41
You Are of Your Father the Devil
 39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

putting it into context with the verse's around it you will see that this is not Jesus teaching on the evils of premarital sex. the quote is of the Pharisees insulting Jesus.

but lets not stop there. lets look closer at the insult. depending on witch translation you read will depend on the wording. some use the term "fornication", others use "illegitimate children" or "sexual immorality".
I know we have touched on the issue of 'fornication vs sexual immorality' in the bible. but there is no need to get into that here.
by reading the verse in context you will see that Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are the sons of the Devil (only inferring the point at first, but says it as clear as day in John 8:44).
but then the Pharisees miss interpret Jesus, (to quote directly from http://bible.cc)

they affected to suppose that he meant they were a mixed, spurious race; that they had no right to the covenant privileges of the Jews; that they were not worshippers of the true God. Hence, they said, We are not thus descended. We have the evidence of our genealogy. We are worshippers of the true God, descended from those who acknowledged him, and we acknowledge no other God and Father than him. To be children of fornication is an expression denoting in the Scriptures idolatry, or the worship of other gods than the true God, Isaiah 1:21; Isaiah 57:3; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 2:4. This they denied. They affirmed that they acknowledged no God for their Father but the true God.

this in depth (and thus likely accurate) interpretation of scripture, that has come from a trust worthy source... even they say that the term "fornication" was what the Pharisees meant. however, the the quote also says strait up that they meant it as "we are direct descendants of Abraham". ie: if a prostitute sleeps with anyone then the father can be anyone and thus a son of a prostitute, or anyone who sleeps outside of marrage, can not guarantee that their linage is 100% of pure Jewish heritage.

my point of view: this (single line withing a) bible verse is NOT about premarital sex as a sin. it is about 'following in your fathers foot steps'. if your father is the Devil then you will do evil. if your father is of pure Jewish heritage then you will act upright enough to call yourself a true Pharisees.

The Bible is based on Tradition.

I currently strongly disagree. but am looking forward to your explanation

This guy is just trolling.

then don't wast your time with me. just like I would rather not wast my time responding to posts that don't address the questions "is premarital sex a sin? why?"

Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
This is absolutely understood by Jews of the past, Jews of today, and all Christians the follow the 10 commandments.

even the other orthodox Christians disagree with this statement. But since we are now talking about how the Jews understood the 10 commandments. I said I will listen to this point of view... so I await your further elaboration.

just note that Adultery refers to Extramarital sex. not premarital sex. as has been said.

Orthodoxy is before denominationalism. It was simply The Church. All "denominations" have their historical roots in the original Church, Orthodoxy.

if all denominations have their roots in the original Church (orthodoxy). then all church's are orthodox Church's. lol

nah, but seriously. can you back up that the current teachings of the 'Orthodox' church as its know today are = to the teachings of the "original church"?

How else are you going to know the teachings of the "original church"?

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.

biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.

After the fall of Old Rome.

[primuspilus]

476 AD to be exact, however some folks say that it was 480 because thats when Nepos died.

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

476 AD to be exact, however some folks say that it was 480 because thats when Nepos died.

PP

However, I do see argument on this thread that we can't really be that exact in our understanding of when the Middle Ages started.

[vamrat]

BS.  The Middle/Dark Ages started in 44 BC with the death of Julius Caesar and went until 1984 with the birth of Me.  Jeesh, people.  This is High School level stuff.

Edit - being serious for a second, there were probably some gray areas between specific eras.  Just as the Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc kind of depend on the area, I would say that from Diocletian to Charlemagne there was a transition between the Classical era and the Middle Ages and the end of the Middle Ages probably started with the Fall of Constantinople but I think 1492 had as many (or more) effects on the Modern World as 1453 did.

[PeterTheAleut]

BS.  The Middle/Dark Ages started in 44 BC with the death of Julius Caesar and went until 1984 with the birth of Me.  Jeesh, people.  This is High School level stuff.

Chill, dude. This tangent really isn't all that important to the subject of discussion.

[vamrat]

BS.  The Middle/Dark Ages started in 44 BC with the death of Julius Caesar and went until 1984 with the birth of Me.  Jeesh, people.  This is High School level stuff.

Chill, dude. This tangent really isn't all that important to the subject of discussion.

Why?  The debate over eras has as much bearing on the OP as the OP does...

[biro]

I don't know if you are aware, but the latest accepted date for the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is 1054. The Middle Ages occurred long after that.

biro,

The most common timeframe for the Middle Ages is from the 5th to the 15th Century.

330-1453.

surely it would be after 476, the fall of the western roman empire, 330 would be late antiquity!

Most history books I've ever read on the matter put the Dark Ages in the 400s-1000s or so, and after then up to the 1400s or so as the Middle Ages; after that is the Reformation and 'Enlightenment.' There's no way credible historians would posit the beginning of the Middle Ages as the 300s. I don't accept partisan interests and polemicists as historians. You can't just throw the preceding couple of eras out the window.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

yes i agree, some push 500 as the end of antiquity because it is when the Roman empire ceased to be Roman, but Greek. Under Justinian was the last attempt the East ever made to reconquer the west.
how this is relevant to the topic i have no idea 

[biro]

It isn't, that much, except that the OP seemed to miss the separation of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, and the lack of connection between the two since then. He made some implication that the RCC was the prevailing authority on marriage even after the split, and I think it's clear the Orthodox would have to disagree.

[Riddikulus]

yes i agree, some push 500 as the end of antiquity because it is when the Roman empire ceased to be Roman, but Greek. Under Justinian was the last attempt the East ever made to reconquer the west.
how this is relevant to the topic i have no idea 

Tangents never are. (Oops, guilty as charged!  )

[just_some_guy]

OK everyone. we have become side tracked enough.
and this time it was because I mentioned the Medieval Church.  
I apologise that my lack of knowledge into the historical development of Christian religion has caused so much termoil.
I originally mentioned the Medieval Church to make a point. but forget that for now and lets back track a bit.
lets take this right back to the start (and hope for things to work out this time)


I ask:
is premarital sex a sin?

you answer:
yes.

I ask:
why?

you answer:
because the Orthodox Church says so.
the Orthodox Church is THE Church of Jesus Christ that holds the correct teachings of God.
the Orthodox Church has kept alive the traditions, practices and teachings of the Apostolic Churches.

I ask:
what makes you so sure the Orthodox Church has it right?
what reasoning / evidence / logic do you use to claim this?
and
even back then there must have been ulterior motives / other reasons for such laws?

you answer:
...

[biro]

I ask:
what makes you so sure the Orthodox Church has it right?
what reasoning / evidence / logic do you use to claim this?
and
even back then there must have been ulterior motives / other reasons for such laws?

you answer:
...

About the first two: how much time do you have?...

About the third: come on, already. You don't go to a Russian restaurant and ask why they don't have French food. If you doubt the authenticity of the Orthodox Church to begin with, and you approach them with an attitude of distrust, what are you doing?

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

have you read reply #128?
OP sin is not a list of bad things we should avoid, its everything that distances us from God, mostly passions taken outside their context.
Lust is a sin!!! if we can't agree to that then i am not sure there is a point to this discusssion
premarital sex is lust.. sex is lust, its only context is marriage, outside that context it is a passion.
thus premarital sex is a sin. your view of sin is blatantly WRONG!

[dzheremi]

It is very easy not accept answers when you are upset that they do not fit into your framework of what "logical" answers (and other thoroughly bizarre preoccupations) should look like. Once again it seems that you're convinced that you're having a discussion with Roman Catholics, when in reality you are haranguing Orthodox Christians. I do not blame them for not wanting any part of this. Rather than wonder where the Orthodox defenses are, remember that humility is the greatest of all virtues, and without it you can't really learn anything.

[just_some_guy]

About the first two: how much time do you have?...

I would prefer if you keep it short.
however individual points will need to be expanded on as required

About the third: come on, already. You don't go to a Russian restaurant and ask why they don't have French food. If you doubt the authenticity of the Orthodox Church to begin with, and you approach them with an attitude of distrust, what are you doing?

firstly there is no if about it. I do 'doubt the authenticity of the Orthodox Church'. I thought that was abundantly clear
secondly, I distrust people. especially people I don't personally know. and especially on topics of theology. I do however trust other forms of evidence. such as historical records and logical reasoning.

thirdly, what I meant by 'ulterior motives' was like so:
it was customary for Israelites to be circumcised. this is Not taught as necessary within the religion today however back then it was, at least, highly expected of every male within Israle.
circumcision helps to prevent STDs. therefore an ulterior motive for encouraging circumcision was to prevent STDs.

sin is not a list of bad things we should avoid, its everything that distances us from God, mostly passions taken outside their context.
Lust is a sin!!! if we can't agree to that then i am not sure there is a point to this discusssion
premarital sex is lust.. sex is lust

I can agree with you on everything so far.
yes, even when you say "premarital sex is lust"
but by the strict definition (as opposed to the implied difinition I know you use it as) Lust is "Lust is an emotional force that is directly associated with the thinking or fantasizing about one's desire, usually in a sexual way". this could even include your husband or wife.

its only context is marriage

this is the point we are in disagreement with.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

there is no disagreement, St paul made it abundantly clear that marriage is second best to celibacy and that IT IS the context of sexual "lust"

[Quinault]

Lust as defined by the dictionary is actually not the same as it is defined within Orthodoxy.

[Quinault]

It is altogether possible to lust (and thus sin) in the context of marriage for your spouse. Lust is not simply desire.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

i don't disagree, but a form of lust is permissible through marriage, to produce something that is not sinful!

[Quinault]

No, there aren't "forms of lust" in marriage that are "permissible." Having sexual desire for your spouse is (and always will be) a positive thing. Lusting after your spouse is not the same as desiring your spouse. Lust is objectification and entirely selfish. Lust is taking something that is good/positive and only focusing on what you get out of it. Lust would be having relations with your spouse only for your own enjoyment with no care for the mutual enjoyment of your spouse. Lust is selfish. Desire in the context of love places the other person first.

[Quinault]

Additionally premarital sex is essentially just lust for the reasons I outlined above. If that weren't true then prostitutes would be the most moral of all people sexually. They care only for the satisfaction of the patron and nothing about their own satisfaction.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

from what i understand, the original greek word for lust does not have the implications that is centered around the english word. sexual desire is lust. it depends on the reasons behind the sexual desire that lust is a positive or negative thing, in all cases its negative except within marriage. in all other things i agree with you

[Quinault]

I think you need to do more research on the etymology of the word lust. There is a difference when it is used as a noun vs. a verb.

[Quinault]

lust (n.)
O.E. lust "desire, pleasure," from P.Gmc. *lustuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris., Du., Ger. lust, O.N. lyst, Goth. lustus "pleasure, desire, lust"), from PIE *las- "to be eager, wanton, or unruly" (cf. L. lascivus "wanton, playful, lustful;" see lascivious).

In M.E., "any source of pleasure or delight," also "an appetite," also "a liking for a person," also "fertility" (of soil). Sense of "sinful sexual desire, degrading animal passion" (now the main meaning) developed in late O.E. from the word's use in Bible translations (e.g. lusts of the flesh to render L. concupiscentia carnis [I John ii 16]); in other Germanic languages, the cognate words tend to still mean simply "pleasure."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lust&allowed_in_frame=0

[Quinault]

Or if you prefer wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust

The word lust is phonetically similar to the ancient Roman lustrum, which literally meant "purification". This was the five-year cycle time for the ritual expiation of "sins" called the lustration as practiced in ancient Greek and Roman cultures, occasionally involving human sacrifice. Sexual intercourse was one of a list of sins requiring lustration. Another similar word existed in ancient Latin, lustratio. [2]

The Seven Deadly Sins, written during the 5th century is a similar list of sins requiring expiation or forgiveness. These doctrines forbade even thoughts and desires for fornicatio (fornication), later generalized as luxuria (lust/lechery).[3][4][5]

The concept also was progressively embodied in debates about mandatory Clerical celibacy beginning in the 1st through 5th centuries and following. For example, Henry Charles Lea states that "Sixtus III barely admits that married persons can obtain eternal life" in his "Sacerdotal History of Christian Celibacy" (p. 45). He also states, "Siricius and Innocent I ransacked the Gospels for texts of more than doubtful application with which to support the innovation <of required celibacy>". (p. 53)

However, in the 11th to 15th centuries the northern European usage of the verb still meant simply "to please, delight;" or "pleasure". A related form "lusty", originally meant "joyful, merry" or "full of healthy vigor". See [1].
The word "lust" began being used in the 16th century in the Protestant Reformation's early non-Latin Bible translations. This is despite the fact that the original Koine Greek Bible has no single word that is uniquely translated as heterosexual lust. q.v.
Today, the meaning of the word still has differing meanings as shown in the Merriam-Webster definition. Lust: 1. a: pleasure, delight b: personal inclination: wish 2. intense or unbridled sexual desire: lasciviousness 3. a: intense longing: craving <a lust to succeed> b: enthusiasm, eagerness <admired his lust for life>. See [2]

Wiki doesn't mention the Orthodox view of lust, just Protestant and Catholic. The Orthodox church doesn't exactly have a "seven deadly sins" (IIRC, please correct if I am wrong) the basis of confession is more around the 10 commandments as a whole. All sin is essentially equal, the personal/social ramifications just vary.

[Quinault]

Ah, here is the Orthodox view on the 7 deadly sins:
http://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin

[PeterTheAleut]

I ask:
what makes you so sure the Orthodox Church has it right?
what reasoning / evidence / logic do you use to claim this?
and
even back then there must have been ulterior motives / other reasons for such laws?

you answer:
...

If you're willing to do some homework and read more threads than just the one you started to be your soap box, we have a number of threads here devoted to explaining WHY we believe the Orthodox Church to be the True Church.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

Ah, here is the Orthodox view on the 7 deadly sins:
http://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin

what evidence do you have that lust and sexual passions are not the same?

[Quinault]

Pikhristos;

I am not following what you mean. You are quoting a post by me about an Orthodox view of "The 7 deadly sins." I never stated that sexual passions aren't lust. I simply said that sexual desire is not automatically lust.

[Quinault]

I don't think that we are required to have sex out of any sense of duty. One should desire their spouse sexually when they are in the marital bed. Having sex simply to have sex divorces the unitive and emotional element. If all sex should be without any desire then sexual arousal of any kind would be a sin. The human body simply doesn't work that way. In order for sex to be possible for a man he must be aroused on some level. In order for sex to not be painful/harmful a woman needs to be aroused on some level (yes, I know artificial lubricants exist, but let's forget about those right now). Desire does not always equal lust. Lust isn't simply desire.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

its only within marriage that its not lust, i read a sermon, by an EO bishop, off the top of my head it mentions that lust and sexual desire are interchangeable except for marriage, where sexual desire is sanctified and is no longer lust which is a sin. i will try to dig it up...
i disagree with your definition of sexual desire being different to lust

[Quinault]

its only within marriage that its not lust, i read a sermon, by an EO bishop, off the top of my head it mentions that lust and sexual desire are interchangeable except for marriage, where sexual desire is sanctified and is no longer lust which is a sin. i will try to dig it up...
i disagree with your definition of sexual desire being different to lust

First, yes you did say that lust can exist in marriage.

i don't disagree, but a form of lust is permissible through marriage, to produce something that is not sinful!

Second; what would you call having a sexual desire for you spouse? You desire to have sexual relations with them. Do you disagree with the desire part, or the word sexual?

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

i do apologize for not expressing myself as clearly as i should!
lust=sexual desire in my understanding. however sexual desire within the context of marriage is not lustful as such, because the relationship is sanctified and it is within its proper context.

[Quinault]

So there is no such thing as sexual desire in marriage? That doesn't make sense to me. That sounds like a pretty unhappy way to live a married life to me

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

sexual desire is lustful outside of marriage , therefore sinful. however sexual desire within marriage is not lust because it is sanctified

[Quinault]

OK, so now you agree with me; sexual desire can exist in marriage and it isn't lust.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

i disagree with the wording, but from the beginning i agree with the substance.

[Quinault]

It is possible to lust your spouse in marriage. Just like it is possible to rape your spouse. Lust is inherently selfish. Lust isn't merely related to sex. Lust is about taking and consuming without giving. Love and lust can't truly exist with each other. Lust can be obsession, but never love. Lusting your spouse is a sin. Loving and desiring your spouse in a sexual way is not a sin.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

i agree with all except the last sentence: outside marriage it is a sin, but i am sure you mean it within marriage
its good we straightened that out!

[neon_knights]

Here is my reasoning. Im sure it isnt the consensus of the Fathers or whatnot, but its MY consensus.

If you look at the Biblical creation myth, whether you hold it to be entirely true physically or not, there are many spiritual truths to this illustration.

God created one man and one woman, and intended them to be united in the bonds of marriage, just as the Trinity is united eternally in Divine Love. God ordered the man and the woman to multiply (i.e., get it on). THIS is the formula (or "context" as Pikhristos was talking about) that God clearly intended for sex. I dont know if there is any interpretation of this anywhere else, but the way I see it is that sexual intercourse outside of this "context" is sin.

The Bible often uses the word "porneia" as something that is forbidden, which means an illicit sexual act. Erasmus and most other translators of the Bible into English translate the word as "fornication", which means sex outside of marriage. If you trust that the Holy Spirit guided these translators to provide an accurate English translation of the Bible, then the question ends there. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.

But, if you still think that fornication is too narrow of a translation for porneia, and think that it should not refer to sex outside of marriage, then it is important to look at other extrabiblical early Christian writings to see how the early Christians interpreted the Bible. Everyone sees the Bible through their own set of glasses. It is important to see the Bible through the glasses of the early Church so that one can have a proper understanding of it. Let's look at what some early Christian texts say about sex outside of marriage.

“ you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. (Did 2:1-2)"

Would not "sexually promiscuous" refer to sex outside of marriage?

It is also clear that abortion was condemned by the Early Church. It is also condemned by some of the Jewish pseudoepigrapha. Lets take a look at Enoch (the Ethiopians consider this to be Scripture).

“revealed to the children of the people (the various) flagellations of all evil,...the smashing of the embryo in the womb so that it may be crushed...” (1En 69:12)

“In those days, the nations shall be confounded, and the families of the nations shall rise in the day of the destruction of the sinners. In those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) shall come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their midst; they shall (also) abandon their (other) children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their beloved ones.” (1En 99:4-5)

Earlier you said abortion wasnt bad. Well, it looks like the early Christians and even the ancient Jews would have disagreed with you there.

Much later, St Augustine (highly revered, in the Western Church especially, for his wisdom) said

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]."


You can see that in the early centuries, the Catholic Church (which according to the Bible is the "pillar of truth"), as guided by the Holy Spirit, did not approve of premarital sex.

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

i have a quibble with labelling the first part of Genesis as a "myth". however, we seem to share the same argument!
the problem is that OP doesn't want to look at analysis or exegesis, he is looking for a commandment that literally states " thou shalt not have premarital sex". OP i personally admit defeat, the bible not only allows premarital sex, but also encourages it, in fact its the duty of christians to do so--( following your logic, nothing in the bible disagrees with the above)
please look within you and listen to the holy spirit that speaks in your conscience!